Please Watch this video and contact them immediately.

https://rumble.com/vl3hpi-vaccine-exemption-guide-mat-staver.html

Also, you'll find this of interest too.

Might be lawsuit time. Based on what I’ve heard from the lawyers I’ve spoken to, employers don’t have much defense against a religious exemption.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#_Toc203359488

Different types of fact patterns may arise in relation to Title VII religious discrimination, including:

treating applicants or employees differently (disparate treatment) by taking an adverse action based on their religious beliefs, observances, or practices (or lack of religious beliefs, observances or practices) in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, discharge, and benefits; taking adverse action motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating a religious belief, observance, or practice that the employer knew or suspected may be needed and would not pose an undue hardship; denying a needed reasonable accommodation sought for an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices if an accommodation will not impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the business; intentionally limiting, segregating or classifying employees based on the presence or absence of religious beliefs, observances, or practices (also a form of disparate treatment), or enforcing a neutral rule that has the effect of limiting, segregating, or classifying an applicant or employee based on religious beliefs, observances, or practices and that cannot be justified by business necessity (disparate impact); subjecting employees to harassment because of their religious beliefs, observances, or practices (or lack of religious beliefs, observances or practices) or because of a belief that someone of the employee’s religion should not associate with someone else (e.g., discrimination because of an employee’s religious inter-marriage, etc.); retaliating against an applicant or employee who has opposed discrimination on the basis of religion, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing regarding discrimination on the basis of religion, including by filing an equal employment opportunity (EEO) charge or testifying as a witness in someone else’s EEO matter, or complaining to a human resources department about alleged religious discrimination. Although more than one of these issues may be raised in a particular case, they are discussed in separate parts of this manual for ease of use.

· NOTE TO EEOC INVESTIGATORS · Charges involving religion, like charges filed on other bases, may give rise to more than one theory of discrimination (e.g., termination, harassment, denial of reasonable accommodation, or other forms of disparate treatment, as well as retaliation). Therefore, these charges could be investigated and analyzed under all theories of liability to the extent applicable.

A. Definitions Overview: Religion is very broadly defined for purposes of Title VII. The presence of a deity or deities is not necessary for a religion to receive protection under Title VII. Religious beliefs can include unique beliefs held by a few or even one individual; however, mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs. Individuals who do not practice any religion are also protected from discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof. Title VII requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs, practices and observances if the beliefs are “sincerely held” and the reasonable accommodation poses no undue hardship on the employer.

1. Religion Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief,” not just practices that are mandated or prohibited by a tenet of the individual’s faith.[18] Religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others.[19] Further, a person’s religious beliefs “need not be confined in either source or content to traditional or parochial concepts of religion.”[20] A belief is “religious” for Title VII purposes if it is “religious” in the person’s “own scheme of things,” i.e., it is a “sincere and meaningful” belief that “occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by . . . God.”[21] The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not a court’s role to determine the reasonableness of an individual’s religious beliefs, and that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”[22] An employee’s belief, observance, or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief, observance, or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it.[23]

Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”[24] Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious,[25] beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”[26]

Courts have looked for certain features to determine if an individual’s beliefs can be considered religious. As one court explained: “‘First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.’”[27]

Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not religious beliefs protected by Title VII.[28] However, overlap between a religious and political view does not place it outside the scope of Title VII’s religion protections, as long as that view is part of a comprehensive religious belief system and is not simply an “isolated teaching.”[29] Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, and refraining from certain activities. Determining whether a practice is religious turns not on the nature of the activity, but on the employee’s motivation. The same practice might be engaged in by one person for religious reasons and by another person for purely secular reasons.[30] Whether the practice is religious is therefore a situational, case-by-case inquiry, focusing not on what the activity is but on whether the employee’s participation in the activity is pursuant to a religious belief.[31] For example, one employee might observe certain dietary restrictions for religious reasons while another employee adheres to the very same dietary restrictions but for secular (e.g., health or environmental) reasons.[32] In that instance, the same practice in one case might be subject to reasonable accommodation under Title VII because an employee engages in the practice for religious reasons, and in another case might not be subject to reasonable accommodation because the practice is engaged in for secular reasons.[33] However, EEOC and courts must exercise a “light touch” in making this determination.[34]

The following examples illustrate these concepts:

https://www.fisherphillips.com/news-insights/3-step-guide-covid19-vaccine-religious-objections.html

An Employer’s 3-Step Guide to Responding to COVID-19 Vaccine Religious Objections Insights

8.26.21

As the Delta variant surges throughout the country, more and more employers are implementing mandatory vaccine policies, especially now that the Pfizer vaccine has received full FDA approval. Most employers know they may need to make reasonable accommodations to the mandatory vaccine plan under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because of an employee’s disability. But what about an employee’s religious objection to a COVID-19 vaccine? How can you respond to an employee’s request for an exemption based on religion without running astray of state and federal antidiscrimination laws but while still upholding your workplace safety goals? Here is your three-step plan for responding to requests for religious exemptions.

(Note: This insight focuses on federal law. Employers should be aware that there may be state-specific laws that may need to be considered in this analysis as well.)

Step 1: Decide Whether the Objection is Based on a Personal Choice or a “Sincerely Held Religious” Belief

The threshold inquiry to any request for a religious accommodation under Title VII is whether the employee has a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance which prevents them from receiving the vaccine. Under federal law, sincerely held religious beliefs “include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Moreover, the term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.

But this doesn’t mean that an employee can get a free pass just because they personally or philosophically do not agree with receiving the vaccine. The U.S. Supreme Court has differentiated religious beliefs from those personal beliefs that are “essentially political, sociological, or philosophical.”

We know it can be difficult for an employer to discern religious beliefs from personal ones, and it is often a tough choice to decide whether to challenge an accommodation request based on your conclusion that this purported religious belief could actually be a personal choice. You should generally assume that an employee’s stated religious belief is sincerely held unless you have a good faith and objective basis for questioning the religious nature or the sincerity of the stated belief. Some examples of when this question might be properly triggered is if the employee recently adopted this belief system in response to your vaccine mandate, or acquired a “religious certification” from a “church” they found online.

If the employee’s purported reason is based on their distrust of the vaccine or a philosophical news article they read online, that will likely not rise to the level of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” But don’t make this assumption right away. Instead, your questions regarding the employee’s stated belief for the exemption should be answered through an interactive process with the employee in which you may be able to – in some circumstances – request additional information or documentation from the employee.

Step 2: Engage in the Interactive Process

If you conclude that the employee’s objection to the mandate is (or could be) grounded in an actual sincerely held religious belief, that doesn’t mean the worker gets to automatically skip the vaccine and resume work as normal. The second step is to engage in what’s known as “the interactive process.” If an employee requests to be exempted from your mandatory vaccination policy due to religious beliefs, you are allowed to – and should – engage in an interactive dialogue with the employee to determine what reasonable accommodation, if any, may be suitable for them and your organization.

Part of this process may entail requesting further information from the employee regarding their faith system in order to determine whether it is, in fact, a sincerely held religious belief. Beyond that, you are permitted to tailor specific questions to your employee in order to address the unique circumstances involved with their request and your work environment.

Regardless of the questions you pose, your interactive process should be well documented so you clearly prove the steps you took. This includes initially providing the employee with a reasonable accommodation request form, tailored and adjusted for your business needs and the specific circumstance at play, and ultimately documenting any reasonable accommodations offered to and accepted/rejected by the employee. Whenever possible, one person or team of people should be assigned to handle such requests in order to ensure the consistent treatment of accommodation requests and the interactive process. You should also ensure that all of your managers are trained in how to recognize requests for religious accommodation and that these requests are forwarded immediately to an assigned religious accommodation liaison or team.

Step 3: Make a Decision on the Accommodation Request

Once you have all the information in hand, your final step is making a decision on how to respond to the request. There are a few key principles your organization should understand before going further:

First, you may end up concluding that there are no accommodations that are reasonable in nature that you can offer the employee, or that any workable accommodations they identify would cause an undue hardship. Second, even if one or more reasonable accommodations are identified, you are not obligated to provide the specific accommodation requested by the employee if you identify and offer them an effective alternative. Third, you don’t need to feel locked into whatever choice you end up making. You could grant an accommodation request and soon realize it’s not workable for some objective reason (that you also document). The law permits you to revisit accommodation requests and adjust as necessary. Once you decide it’s time to determine what types of accommodations, if any, might be possible, you should take into account your particular work environment. Reasonable accommodations in this context may include requiring the employee to wear a mask at all times, weekly or biweekly COVID-19 testing, working at a social distance from other employees, a reassignment to another vacant and available position, unpaid leave, or a combination of these options. Take the employee’s input into account and make a decision about which accommodation(s) you will provide.

If the employee refuses all options you offer to them, holding out for an accommodation of their choosing that you have decided is not reasonable, you may have no choice but to exclude them from the workplace. You might be in a situation where you would place them on an unpaid leave of absence until circumstances surrounding the pandemic change and permit the safe return of unvaccinated workers.

You have one have final consideration to make: in determining if a religious accommodation can be made, the last step is determining whether the specific accommodation request made by the employee or the only accommodation request you can identify causes an undue hardship.

An undue hardship is one that would require more than a de minimis cost or burden to your organization or the operations of your business. This is a lower standard to meet than the undue burden standard under the ADA, which is “significant difficulty or expense.” Besides the monetary cost, the safety risk imposed by the requested accommodation also plays a factor in determining undue hardship. Note that some state laws, like California, may have a higher standard for proving undue hardship than is required under federal law. Please check with your local Fisher Phillips attorney before proceeding. The determination of whether a specific request would pose an undue hardship is fact-specific and may change as your workforce changes. For example, a particular reasonable accommodation request, such as isolation to a particular room or a temporary unpaid leave of absence, may not normally be an undue hardship. However, these accommodations may prove to create an undue hardship if there are in inordinate number of individuals making accommodation requests (religious or medical) such that your business operations shift over time.

If you determine that the particular accommodation requested by the employee will cause an undue hardship and are unable to find an alternative accommodation through the interactive process, the next step may be to consider placing the employee on an unpaid leave of absence or separation of employment. We recommend contacting employment counsel prior to taking this next step.

Conclusion

We will continue to monitor developments related to the COVID-19 vaccines and related workplace questions that arise. Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips’ Insight system to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions about how to ensure that your vaccine policies comply with workplace and other applicable laws, visit our Vaccine Resource Center for Employers or contact the authors of this Insight, your Fisher Phillips attorney, or any attorney on our FP Vaccine Subcommittee.

continue to fight, dont quit, keep doing your job, make them fire you

I would think it's fraud if they will take paperwork on exemptions, but deny them all 100%. That means they are wasting your time on purpose.